How is Vronsky “of the world”? Three instances answer this question. The first comes during 1.17, when Levin expresses he believes Vronsky is not an Aristocrat when talking to Oblonsky, “A man whose father crept out of nothing by wiliness, whose mother, God knows who she didn’t have liaisons with…” (172). Clearly, Vronsky is trying to perform one of the world’s favorite tricks, deception, by putting on a false image of his social class. The next example of Vronsky’s worldliness is that he “felt the love which joined him to Anna was not a momentary passion that would go away, as society liaisons do, leaving no traces in the life of either one of them except some pleasant or unpleasant memories,” (183-4). This is extremely worldly because it is rooted in emotion. In fact, Vronsky “felt the love…” as opposed to “knew the love.” The final instance of Vronsky being of the world occurs so numerously throughout the book: his love of material object, a common theme in the book of most of the characters. One of the main examples occurred during the horserace, after Vronsky and his horse fell to the ground just before winning the race. Vronsky, although not crushed by the horse, “to his dismay, he felt that he was whole and unhurt,” and “this race remained in his soul…as the most heavy and painful memory of his life” (200). The fact that the pedestal that Vronsky put this worldly race (resulting in “the most heavy and painful memory of his life”) atop is greater than his mishaps with Anaa proves that his life is lost in the “lofts” of the world.

One scene in Jane Eyre that distinctly stands out to me is when Mr. Rochester dresses as a fortune teller and creates quite a buzz. How would this scene be different if the perplexed guests were not aristocratic, but rather common folk?

The spoiled-rich, such as Ms. Ingram, often convey a sense of flawlessness and high-self-esteem (i.e. through their clothing, hairstyles, ways of speech), whereas poor people, such as Jane, often struggle to feel perfect and confident, given they are viewed by society as lower-class. Thus, if the guests had not been wealthy, they may not have been as in shock and bitterness at being “picked apart” and insulted, like Ms. Ingram, for their pride would not be so fragile as hers, which was clearly based on her inheritance–not character.

Why is this significant? Charlotte Bronte needed these conditions to mold her story, which has the message that love transcends even strict societal boundaries. She had Mr. Rochester falling for the snooty Lady Ingram before showing his true target of love, the lower-class Jane: “just Jane.” Though she is not simply “just Jane,” but “Jane the just,” for by her strength of discernment, she baffles the “gypsy” and foretelling that it is Rochester himself, her soon-to-be fortune!

Zeffirelli’s film-take on Romeo and Juliet was overall very well done. From the cinematography to the musical score, the drama of the story was definitely conveyed to the viewer, thanks to the director. One entertaining, though risky aspect of the film was the classic zoom-in. (Smell that cheese?…obviously, the director wanted to communicate the passion of the two lovers), BUT THAT FAST ZOOM-IN on Romeo and Juliet’s untameable embrace in the center of the stone-floored cathedral was bubbling nacho cheese well-over the brim of what I would consider as reasonable dramatic effect.

An additional close-up the director incorporated, this one, thank God, not such overkill, was the visual, through Friar Lawrence’s eyes, of that potent purple flower. Oh, Friar, interesting character…

On subject of him, but leaving the subject of cinematography, I must bring up some questioning about his “holy” character.

Has he sinned?

For he could not stand by Juliet after she awoke from the longest sleep.